Author: Amir Ban
Date: 01:08:17 11/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 1998 at 23:14:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On November 09, 1998 at 19:50:27, jonathan Baxter wrote:
>
>>On November 09, 1998 at 17:11:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>>I am not accusing anyone of lying, I was not aware that feng hu personally told
>>>>bob hyatt about the match results. Still the question has yet to be answered why
>>>>haven't the games been revealed? This is a very simple question, If such a match
>>>>between deepblue and the micro's did in fact occur it is a tremendously
>>>>important event and should be published!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hsu told me about this privately. He and Murray both have discussed this at
>>>a couple of presentations they have given since the DB match. however I doubt
>>>they will say much here as it would only take a word by one of them to get the
>>>personal attacks going like crazy, by those that "hate big iron."
>>>
>>
>>I don't hate "big iron" and I am not interested in attacking these guys
>>personally. But I do find it terribly disappointing and very surprising that
>>DB---the most exciting thing ever in computer chess and possibly AI as
>>well---only played one, inconclusive match against the human world champion and
>>then quit forever.
>>
>>It would have cost IBM almost nothing to put DB on ICC and have it play top
>>GM's, and the results would have been incredibly interesting for both human and
>>computer chess.
>>
>>Given the extent to which DB built upon freely published research, and the
>>amount of publicity IBM gained from the last Kasparov match, it seems to me that
>>letting DB play in open competition is the least IBM could have done to repay
>>their debt to the research community.
>>
>>Jon
>
>
>You think way too small, as do most of us. When you look at the value of
>another Deep Blue vs someone match in a year or two, then you begin to
>understand why it is kept under wraps. Interest is high. A Karpov match
>would draw another crowd, as would a match against maybe Anand...
>
>This is all about money... and once it becomes about money, the guys doing
>the research lose control to the guys counting beans...
You are both wrong. Jon expresses a naive wish, but your explanation of why this
won't happen is in the wrong direction. Deep Blue will not play again, and has
already retired from computer events several years ago.
It so happens I have a draft Shay sent me of an article he's writing for some
purpose, in which, in passing, he reviews the Deep-Blue affair. Here's the
quote:
...
Indeed, in May 1997, an IBM "monster" named Deep-Blue managed to
beat Gary Kasparov, the reigning human world champion, in a six-game match
3.5-2.5. IBM cleaned up, achieving an amazing financial gain:
1. Its stock jumped up 20%
2. It had planted the notion of supremacy in computing
3. Its sales of super computers grew as it branded the name "Deep Blue"
in its product line.
By refusing to play a revenge match and dismantling the Deep Blue
project, IBM ensured that its result would be perceived as an ultimate proof
of supremacy and prolonged the public relations effect to the maximum.
Kasparov, shattered by his loss, has never played a computer since then.
A few facts regarding computers and the game of chess can cast some
doubt about Deep-Blue's true strength. Few people know, for instance,
that prior to its game against Kasparov, Deep-Blue with all its calculative
might, was not even the official world computer champion.
It lost this title, lo and behold, to a PC program named 'Fritz', from
Germany, that managed to defeat it at the official world computer
championships held in Hong-Kong 1995.
Since then, the IBM team carefully avoided any more "embarrassments"
and did not confront any other computer programs officially. In fact, it
reduced its opponent field to just one person - Gary Kasparov.
...
Amir
This page took 0.04 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.